With regard to the Veterans Independence Program (VIP) and the VIP expansion for survivors administered by Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC): (a) how many veterans have received VIP benefits each year from 2006 to 2014 inclusive; (b) how many clients were reassessed for eligibility for VIP benefits each year from 2006 to 2014 inclusive; (c) how many clients reassessed for VIP eligibility each year from 2006 to 2014 inclusive were denied the benefit; (d) from 2006 to 2014 inclusive, out of those veterans who were denied the VIP benefit after reassessment, how many (i) appealed the decision, (ii) did not appeal the decision, (iii) had their benefits reinstated upon appeal, (iv) were denied further benefits upon appeal; (e) how many weeks did it take for VAC to reassess eligibility for VIP benefits each year from 2006 to 2014 inclusive; (f) how many individuals applied for the VIP expansion for survivors each year from 2006 to 2014 inclusive; (g) how many individuals received the VIP expansion for survivors each year from 2006 to 2014 inclusive; (h) of those mentioned in (g), how many qualified as (i) Guaranteed Income Supplement recipients, (ii) Disability Tax Credit recipients; (i) broken down by year, how many individuals who applied to the VIP expansion as listed in (f) were denied the VIP expansion; and (j) out of these veterans listed in (i) how many individuals (i) appealed the decision, (ii) did not appeal the decision, (iii) received this benefit upon appeal, (iv) were denied these benefits upon appeal?

With regard to materials prepared for past or current Assistant Deputy Ministers or their staff from April 1, 2011, to March 31, 2013: for every briefing document or docket prepared, what is (i) the date, (ii) the title or the subject matter, (iii) the department's internal tracking number?

With regard to materials prepared for past or current Parliamentary Secretaries or their staff from April 1, 2011, to March 31, 2013: for every briefing document or docket prepared, what is (i) the date, (ii) the title or the subject matter, (iii) the department's internal tracking number?

With respect to offences related to money and other assets held offshore in the period March 31, 2012, to December 31, 2014: (a) how many convictions were there during this period; (b) what are the details of each conviction in (a), including (i) the name of the individuals convicted, (ii) the name and type (i.e. civil or criminal) of offense, (iii) the amount of money or the type of asset and the value of the asset involved, (iv) the location of the money or asset involved, (v) the possible range of penalties/sentences upon conviction, (vi) the actual penalty or sentence received, (vii) whether the conviction was achieved through sentencing, plea bargain, settlement, etc., (viii) the amount of time that passed between the commencement of an audit, investigation, or some other form of compliance action in respect of the offence and the date of conviction; (c) how many offences related to money and other assets held offshore were considered/referred for civil prosecution during this period but never pursued; (d) how many offences related to money and other assets held offshore were considered/referred for criminal prosecution during this period but never pursued; (e) how many offences related to money and other assets held offshore were prosecuted civilly during this period but were thrown out of court or lost in court; and (f) how many offences related to money and other assets held offshore were prosecuted criminally during this period, but were thrown out of court or lost in court?

With regard to contracts under $10 000 granted by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited since March 27, 2014: what are the (a) vendors' names; (b) contracts' reference numbers; (c) dates of the contracts; (d) descriptions of the services provided; (e) delivery dates; (f) original contracts' values; and (g) final contracts' values, if different from the original contracts' values?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to be able to add two cents on Bill C-51, which the Conservatives appear to be ramming through this Parliament without regard for some of Canada's well-fought-for human rights and rights and privileges. Among them is information sharing among agencies. Multiple government departments will now be allowed to share information without being subject to the Privacy Act. The Privacy Act is one of the acts Canadians depend on to keep their personal and private information from prying eyes.

There is no better example of that than Ms. Ellen Richardson, in my riding, who tried to cross the border into the United States, only to discover that her medical information had been shared with the U.S. government in such a way that the U.S. government refused to allow her access. She is a disabled individual. She was going on a March of Dimes cruise, and that cruise was lost to her, and all the money she had spent on it was lost to her because of the information that had been shared by the government with the Government of the United States.

This bill makes that so much worse. I wonder if the member would comment.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot comment on the specific case. I am not familiar with the facts of the situation or the underpinnings of it.

However, to not have, as the member says, those departments that have to do with the security of Canadians able to share information with other departments that have to do with the security of Canadians is not warranted in light of what we are facing in terms of imminent threats by terrorists, or anyone who would be a threat to Canadians. We would expect our agencies to share that information among themselves when it has to do with security.

There are checks and balances. Of course, if the information obtained by those agencies were used inappropriately, there would be steps that could be taken to remedy that.

Mr. Speaker, the member implied in his remarks that terrorism has to be taken head-on. It looks to me as if the implication was that those who may not support this bill are not willing to take terrorism head-on. There is a problem with that.

There is nobody in this House, I would submit, who does not want to take terrorism head-on. The difficulty is that we have a government that believes that the only opinion that matters is its own. Even though everyone else in this place represents some 61% of the population, from the Conservatives' point of view, their opinion does not matter. Does the member not see that as a problem?

The way this bill has developed, it is all of one or none of the other. Does the member not think that this place should be able to find compromises so that we deal with both the security side and the protection of civil liberties side? This bill is out of balance.

Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the member that this bill is out of balance.

Steven Bucci, the Heritage Foundation representative, said:

My review of Bill C-51 leads me to conclude that this is a...balance between greater physical protection without loss of civil liberties. In the various sections, there's a judicious expansion of info-sharing and law enforcement authorities but in each there are also provisions for recourse and appeals. There is transparency and openness.... In short, this bill seems to balance security and liberty.

Indeed, we have to balance the various interests and come up with the best situation we can in the legislation. This legislation does that. We must combat terrorism head-on. We cannot stand on the sidelines. Even when we join our allies in the fight against ISIL, we expect to engage the terrorists where they are to disrupt them and to ensure that they cannot do us or Canadians any harm. We cannot be found, as some have been found in this House, standing on the sidelines watching while this situation unfolds before us.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help in this debate but start by asking what could have been. What could have been done properly with respect to this institution and the people who operate in it, regardless of political stripe, and with respect to finding the balance between national security and civil liberties?

Based on the knowledge we now have of other countries in terms of their national security legislation, and the review agencies that provide oversight on their security agencies, this Parliament could have produced a model for the world in terms of anti-terrorism legislation. However, the bottom line is that we have done anything but that.

We have a piece of legislation that deals somewhat with security concerns, and we support that part of the legislation. However, we are the odd person out in terms of providing protection under the law, through a national oversight sunset clause and other means, to ensure that the citizens of Canada have their civil liberties and freedom of expression protected.

We also want assurance that the national security agencies in total, not just CSIS, but any agency or department that is involved in national security, are properly monitored by people who should have the responsibility, the parliamentarians, on a day-to-day basis. This would ensure that on the one hand these agencies are abiding by the law and doing everything they can within the law to keep Canadians safe, and on the other hand that they are not going beyond the law to impose or infringe on Canadian's civil liberties, or for that matter a foreigner's civil liberties.

Legislation similar to Bill C-51 is required, as is evidenced in virtually every country that Canada is allied with or has shared values with. There is no question that countering the growing threat of foreign and domestic terrorism is a reality which must be confronted by the modern state. However, in combatting that threat, it is important for any government to ensure that the steps taken to combat it do not impose a different threat to its own citizens.

The Liberal Party supports the needed security provisions of Bill C-51 and has made that position clear from the outset. We are not shy about taking a leadership position in that regard. It is easy to oppose, but if we oppose the bill, then we are not dealing with those immediate needs. The policing agencies, CSIS, and even witnesses who have opposed the bill, have come before the committee and said there is a need for security provisions at this time. However, I submit that there is a real problem on the other side.

Sadly, there is a real dilemma here with the bill before us, as with many others. We get caught in what I could call a partisan vortex. We are accused by some, NDP members in particular, of supporting the government. We are not supporting the government. We are supporting certain aspects of Bill C-51. The government, on the other hand, is accusing the NDP and others of supporting terrorism. We all have national security concerns in this place. The problem is that the current Government of Canada does not allow this Parliament to work the way that it should.

We have also maintained that there are provisions in Bill C-51 that are excessive, and will in our opinion represent an intrusion by the state security agencies into the lives of Canadians. They are far too severe.

These provisions, as I have said, could have been narrowed; they could have been amended. There were decent amendments put forward by all parties, and most of them were rejected. Three of our amendments, and the NDP also had some, were indirectly accepted through the four amendments that came forward from the government.

Early in the debate on Bill C-51, my colleague, the member for Mount Royal, and I joined four former prime ministers, including three Liberal prime ministers and others, in issuing an open letter underscoring two fundamental responsibilities of government: ensuring the safety of Canadians, including protecting Canadians from terrorist attacks; and ensuring that initiatives in this regard are consistent with the rule of law and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and are particularly subject to comprehensive oversight, review, and accountability measures.

In the course of the committee hearings, we proposed many amendments, as did others. As I have said, three amendments were indirectly accepted within government amendments. One of the key ones was certainly taking the word “lawful” out before “protest”, et cetera, about which civil activists groups were rightly concerned.

Three critical amendments from our slate of amendments, though, were rejected: the need for oversight of our intelligence and security agencies; building in provisions in the bill for the review and sunsetting of certain provisions of Bill C-51; and the need to ensure that any new authorities given to CSIS and others under Bill C-51 are charter compliant. There is a very strong risk, and I believe a reality, that some of those provisions in the bill are not charter compliant.

The issue of oversight of our security and intelligence agencies has long had the support of the Liberal Party. In the wake of 9/11 and the first anti-terrorist legislation, it was a Liberal government, with the support of members of the government at the time and the NDP, that brought forward Bill C-81. It created a committee of parliamentarians that would provide that oversight. As I said, that came out of a committee report that the previous minister, Anne McLellan, appointed. I happened to be a member of that committee as well as one of the co-chairs, as were the current Minister of Justice and the current Minister of State for Finance.

It was a unanimous report of the committee. That legislation was proposed, but it died on the order paper. In June 2009, in a report on the review of the findings and recommendations arising from the Iacobucci and O'Connor inquiries, the public safety committee recommended that Bill C-51 be adopted. It provided for national oversight.

It is interesting that six members of the Conservative government were on that committee. The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville, the member for Oxford, the member for Brant, the member for Northumberland—Quinte West, the member for Wild Rose, and the previous member of the Conservative Party, the member for Edmonton—St. Albert were on that committee. What has happened to them that they are not now in favour of national oversight?

I recognize that my time is short, but at the very least I would encourage the government to bring forward a parallel bill, in terms of oversight, for national security agencies. There are private members' bills on the books that would do the trick and could be brought forward.

We need three things. We are saying that while we support the bill, we will put these three things in the election platform of the Liberal Party because the government has failed to do so.

First, we need a national oversight committee of parliamentarians similar to that of our Five Eyes partners. Second, we need to put in place sunset clauses to ensure that sections of the bill cease to exist in three years. Third is a statutory mandatory review so that the bill itself, the good, the bad, and the ugly, is looked at by future Parliament, in three years' time, to make the bill the best that it can be.

Roxanne JamesConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his speech. He also sits with me on the public safety committee.

Throughout his speech, he continued to refer to issues surrounding his failed private member's bill. He asked many of these questions of the witnesses during committee, even though his failed private member's bill and his ideas for oversight were not part of the actual bill itself. In fact, during clause-by-clause, he had to withdraw some of the amendments he had put forward because what he felt was the truth was actually not correct and officials had to correct him.

We have been very clear on this side of the House. We firmly believe that third party, independent, non-political oversight is the best method to ensure that our security agencies can operate without any political interference from very partisan members who are in the House. Let us be clear about that.

It is strange enough that the member likes to compare this particular issue with countries we are similar to, wanting to know why we are not doing it. I should ask him the same question. When comparing us to other countries, why did the Liberal Party vote against standing shoulder to shoulder with our allies in the global fight against jihadist terrorism and joining the air strikes and coalition against ISIL?

That is the question I would like to ask the member. Why does he not use that same philosophy on issues that actually matter to Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, the security of Canadians is very important, but oversight is important too. I will quote what Ron Atkey had to say. He is a former Conservative MP and was the first chair of SIRC. He said:

...I have been both a parliamentarian and a watchdog, a professional watchdog. The answer to whether Parliament or a specialized agency should have the power to review our security agencies is easy for me. Canadians should have both. Under our system of government, Parliament is the ultimate watchdog and is directly accountable to the people. The party having the most number of seats at each general election usually is called on to form the government, but Parliament itself remains the watchdog.

That came from a former Progressive Conservative member.

The other point I would make to what the parliamentary secretary said is that in terms of being non-partisan, are Deborah Grey, as chair of the SIRC committee, and Chuck Strahl, non-partisan? Come on. We all know better than that.

Mr. Speaker, let us start with a known element here, which is that the House collectively is concerned with the safety and security of Canadians. When allegations are made otherwise by someone, it is not becoming of them or of others.

Let us also establish the fact that it is well understood that oversight is incredibly important, particularly when handing over increased powers. The powers being imagined to be given to CSIS in this bill are extraordinary. It would be able to tap phones, hack into people's email accounts, and have almost no judicial oversight of any of those measures.

We have asked for and demanded parliamentary oversight. My question specifically for my Liberal friend is that he mentioned that there were some amendments taken. They were small and around the edges of the essential questions. We do not believe that this bill is constitutional, and many experts who study constitutional matters agree with us. There is in fact nobody who says it is, other than the Conservatives across the way.

The member said that there were three elements that the Liberals proposed that were critical to the bill's function. We have a choice in front of us. None of those changes were offered up. The government has refused. It is not moving a private member's bill, as he suggested, to make something better happen; this is the Conservative plan on Bill C-51.

I have seen many bills passed through this place. I have never seen a public reaction against a piece of legislation like I have with this legislation. If those measures were critical, why for heaven's sake are the Liberals continuing to vote for it? It is either critical or it is not. If it is that important to the Liberals, they have a choice, which is to vote against Bill C-51.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my remarks, one of the difficulties with a dysfunctional Parliament and a government that does not allow compromises to be made through expert opinion and public input by members of the House is that it is nearly impossible to come to a united position. There is no question that we have felt some heat on Bill C-51, and I understand that. I respect those people who are out there demonstrating in the streets against the bill. I understand where they are coming from.

However, because I have been a former solicitor general and have seen the security side, when CSIS and police authorities now come to me and say that the threat level is higher at the moment and that they need those extra provisions, we should not take the approach of the Prime Minister that there is a terrorist under every rock. However, there is an increased security threat and we have a responsibility as a party to err on the side of security.

I agree with my colleague who asked the question. There is no question the court will eventually turn back this legislation because it does violate certain sections of the charter. However, we will err on the side of security for the moment and hopefully fix the bill, one way or another, after the coming election in October.